I think the real issue is why binge drinking is so popular on college campuses - it's a recipe for disaster (for both men and women). Getting this drunk is essentially a form of drug abuse; and is illegal for people their age.

So my opinion is that the man should have known better, and the woman should have known better. All students need to realize that nothing positive comes out of binge drinking.

If we advocate responsible drinking, sexual assault can be drastically reduced on college campuses.

My actual contribution to the ongoing discussion: I sense that there is some amount of gender bias going on in several posts I've read here, but rather than go into specifics I'll try and give my own views on it. As it has already been pointed out that men tend to be in an unfavorable position when it comes to the consent debate, there's no reason to go much further than to simply state that they are. For whatever reason it appears that this men are expected to carry a certain moral responsibility for their actions while drunk that women often don't have to share. It seems to go back to the whole 'Men just want/expect sex, while women are the ones who have to give consent'-thing, which has been proven false time and time gain. Male rape is an actual that happens, and it probably happens a lot more than we expect that a no from a man is not accepted for what it is, and he he is goaded into having sex with dubious consent, if not outright sexually assaulted.

If both parties are drunk and there is evidence that they have been flirting that would point towards both parties consenting, it's just plain wrong to put the female in a favorable moral position based only the fact that she is female and could therefore not be exploiting a mans desire to have sex, because status quo is that men want sex at any time and any place.

They're both to blame for being drunk and dumb, and whatever punishment is deemed right they should have to share it - Sending only one of them away but excusing the other is unfair.

Why because pointing out that because women had to worry that there is dangers when going out, that men shouldn't complain that they have their own things to worry about? Why is it ok for both to suffer when it makes far more sense to work towards making it so neither have to suffer? of course the only REAL difference is women very rarely have to suffer in silence compared to men in this regard? Sure the case might be dropped, but at least they get the chance to have the case in the first place. Men don't get that luxury 90% of the time.

As for this, no. My point is that nazi analogies don't work in a serious debate, and for the most part they're actually fairly offensive. Most often they tend to derail an ongoing discussion, and it doesn't seem right to just slap one in here and leave it hanging without at least some reasoning behind why you'd resort to that instead of just explaining what you meant in a way that suits the context of the discussion.

But I'll leave it be now, because I don't want to derail the discussion either.

Honestly, the whole Nazi thing is completely malicious. I will simply say that right off the bat. To compare this discussion to genocide is seriously a crude statement and gesture. To clarify though, I did not say it’s ok for men to be afraid of going out because women were. I said picking up anyone, and I was careful to say anyone and not women or men, from an environment like that is dangerous. Women bore the brunt of that fear for many decades. Men want the danger removed to where they can have sex with drunk women, they want this returned to where things were and women had more of the danger. Personally I would love for everyone to be able to go out and have a good time, but that is an ideal world.

As for men being required to have the moral high ground, I disagree. Women are the ones told to cross their ankles to avoid pregnancy, to not go to these environments and to not wear enticing clothing. Men were told to go out, have fun and enjoy life. Girls Gone Wild did not prey on drunk men, it preyed on drunk women. Men were given the go ahead, while women were told to be careful. So now that women are being given freedom, men are finding they have to take care with their actions.

In this regard I do think Valthazar is correct that more responsible drinking needs to be encouraged in our culture.

There is no reason he could not have waited until morning to sober up, call her and talk to her.

There was no reason she could not have waited until the morning to sober up, call him and talk to him. Instead she went to his room. Everything that applies to him equally applies to her. If he sexually assaulted her then she sexually assaulted him.

Instead he texted her to come over after the initial activity was over because he knew that he could get laid because she was so drunk.

I assume you have a source for this last part? Nowhere in any of the documents I've seen, including the official complaints and investigations, is it ever alleged that he targeted (for lack of a better word) her because she was drunk.

Indeed, he thought when a woman said yes, having shown the ability to send text messages (including to one of her friends saying how she was about to have sex), sneak out of her own room (something she was proud of), make it to his room and then engage in sexual intercourse that "yes" actually meant "yes". As it turned out, that was a terrible decision. Apparently "yes" actually means "yes until I regret it in the morning and get pressured into claiming I was sexually assaulted."

He probably also thought that seeing as he was as drunk as her the conclusion would be... as the police found... that it was drunken consensual sex between adults. Not that she would be pressured into calling it rape and he would be targeted because he "fitted the profile" of a rapist, that profile being... and I kid you not... that he had a high GPA, was part of a sports team, a valedictorian and came from "a good family".

I find this disturbing that men become so frightened when alcohol makes a woman unable to consent.

And I find it utterly disturbing that we can ignore a woman's consent or pretend she doesn't mean what she says on the basis that she's had a bit to drink. Reread the evidence and then reread the list Kylie linked to and I quoted on guidelines that someone is too drunk to consent. She touches on maybe two of them at most.

Women have had to worry about the dangers for decades. So, I am sorry to say that the men now have to be a little more discerning and careful when drinking and picking out sexual partners.

He didn't pick her out. She picked out him. He then asked her to return and she did. She went to the room of a clearly intoxicated man (who fits just as many as the "too drunk to consent" guidelines as she does) who she'd already "picked up" (to use colloquial terms) and engaged in sexual activity with for the purposes of having sex and had sex with him. If I knew a girl was drunk... apparently too drunk to consent... waited for his friends to leave (as she did), went to her room and then had sex with her, wouldn't I be liable for sexual assault? Why the double standard?

As for the reverse situation, many rape cases were dropped because a woman brought a man back to her apartment. Hell, many rape cases are dropped because of what she was wearing. So maybe we need to pull back a moment to place the amount of rape cases that are thrown out, dropped or not considered due to things like who invited who over and such.

I'm not sure I see the point here. Is it that because something bad happens we should make sure more bad things happen to "even it out"?

I did not say she is blameless Andy. She made a poor decision, but the school is not going to expel a rape victim. Also he never filed a complaint against her for sexual misconduct. So he can hardly expect her to be expelled for reporting him.

1) According to the college she didn't make a decision. That's the point.

2) The only reason she's a rape victim and not a rapist is because she complained first. Everything that condemns him also condemns her.

So the college is made aware of the actions of a sexual predator on the campus and doesn't investigate but instead expels the victim?

If he sexually assaulted her then she sexually assaulted him. If one is to be expelled the only fair result is to expel them both. Hiding behind a "well, one complained and one didn't" not only gives a perverse incentive to report every bout of sexual activity where alcohol has been consumed as a sexual assault (to cover your own ass) but it also allows the college to bury its head in the sand when it does come to sexual assault. By its own standards the college is allowing a sexual predator to remain at the college, free to strike again. And as the college staff member who pressured the Jane Doe into making the complaint makes clear, the college's view is that sexual predators are normally repeat offenders. From what information we have she came from a good family, she had a high level of academic achievement and she was sporty... all of which also indicate she's a rapist according to the college.

Depends on the school, consortium11. At Duke University, the gender discrimination is clear.

Quote from: Page 2 of the article

When a male student who had been expelled by Duke University for violating its sexual misconduct policy sued the university last year, Duke dean Sue Wasiolek testified that in cases where both parties are drunk, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

As well as others.

Quote

On other campuses, the double standard goes unstated. Last year, BuzzFeed’s Katie J.M. Baker spoke with a male student who was found responsible for sexual misconduct at an Ivy League school after—according to multiple witness accounts—he drunkenly made out with a female student, who was also drunk. When the female student woke up the next day with no recollection of what had happened the night before, she contacted school officials and local police and submitted to a forensic examination to determine if she had been raped; the rape kit showed no signs of assault, but the male student was suspended for a year. The student didn’t blame the woman for initiating an investigation against him—“That doesn’t strike me as an easy accusation to make,” he told Baker—but he does fault the school for finding him responsible. “They couldn’t prove that I wasn’t just as drunk,” he said. “So why was the burden of consent immediately assigned to me instead of her?” And after a male student at the College of Holy Cross was accused of sexual misconduct for having sex with an incapacitated woman in 2011, he sued the school, contending that she was merely intoxicated and that the school had overstated her level of drunkenness due to her gender.

As far as this one:

Quote

Quote from: Pumpkin Seeds on Today at 04:08:34 PMAs for the reverse situation, many rape cases were dropped because a woman brought a man back to her apartment. Hell, many rape cases are dropped because of what she was wearing. So maybe we need to pull back a moment to place the amount of rape cases that are thrown out, dropped or not considered due to things like who invited who over and such.

I'm not sure I see the point here. Is it that because something bad happens we should make sure more bad things happen to "even it out"?

I believe what she's saying is that things like inviting someone to your apartment and owning a condom constitute initiating sex. Those are the things that the guy does which she lists as what he did to initiate. I'm trying to confirm that one, though, because it seems off to me.

We have a lot of people all jumping on Pumpkin. We may not agree with her, but it can be difficult to handle something when a bunch of people all pop in at once, so I'd like to attempt to divert things a bit.

Other than Pumpkin, we all seem to agree that either both should be expelled or neither should be.

Now, to those who agree with that, should both be expelled or should neither be expelled, and what reasons would you give for that?

So before I post this, I do want to make a few caveats. First, all of this assumes that everyone involves knows exactly what they're drinking - slipping alcohol into someone's non-alcoholic drink so they get drunk without consenting to getting drunk is just plain not cool, and if it's done so they consent to sex, should definitely count as rape. I'm also going to assume that both parties are at relatively equal levels of drunkenness - going to a bar sober with the intent of finding a drunk person to have sex with is definitely skeevy, though I don't think it should necessarily be illegal.

On to the main point, then...

There's been a discussion here about people being responsible for what they do while drunk, and they shouldn't be allowed to use their drunkenness as a shield against punishment. That, I agree with; everyone needs to learn to drink responsibly. However, when comparing this to something like going out and killing someone while drunk, having sex is quite a bit different because the act of having sex itself isn't a crime. It's only one when the other party doesn't consent. Because what determines if something is "rape" or "assault" is consent, not simply the act, different aspects need to be considered. Specifically, if you agree that being drunk enough to impair your judgment doesn't absolve you of any crimes you committed while drunk, it should also not absolve you of other regrettable decisions made while drunk, including the decision to consent.

For this case in particular, I honestly don't know enough about college life to know whether drunk parties are enough concern to get someone expelled. So I can't really say if this should end with someone getting expelled from the college. However, if it's reasonable to think that both parties were equally drunk and both were equally consenting, the consequences should be the same for both, no matter who complained about sexual assault or rape. Neither person should be able to get away without punishment while the other gets expelled.

Neither, because if we was to expel all sex while intoxicated, we'd have around 1/4 of all college students being kicked out, it's just not a feasible number and a college shouldn't be treated like a monastery or a pre-consenting age school. Otherwise you might as well make having sex after drinking illegal.

Now, to those who agree with that, should both be expelled or should neither be expelled, and what reasons would you give for that?

I think I need more time to think on this (and I'm open to change my initial opinion based on the arguments), but I don't think the fact that they had sex should factor into this. There should simply be a rule about drunken parties, and as long as nothing illegal/dangerous/etc happens during them, there shouldn't be any changes to the consequences based on what happens. This can change if it's clear one person was sober and waiting for the other to get drunk so they'd consent to sex, but if it's clear both parties were drinking heavily, I don't agree with harsher penalties than the party itself would have to face.

Now, to those who agree with that, should both be expelled or should neither be expelled, and what reasons would you give for that?

Both students should be equally disciplined. Binge drinking is literally the critical issue on college campuses, and for whatever reason, it's viewed as "college students being college students." Not only is this illegal for students of this age, but it simply feeds into the narrative of "rape culture" pushed by some feminists.

Perhaps cracking down on this will dissuade students from participating in this high risk activity - both men and women.

Now, to those who agree with that, should both be expelled or should neither be expelled, and what reasons would you give for that?

They should both be allowed to stay, and the campus staff should immediately enforce a ban on alcohol at the site. I live in a country where this sort of behavior wouldn't be acceptable at all in the first place, so of course I'm biased, but there are piles of evidence to show that these youths cannot handle alcohol and they will do incredibly stupid things.

Honestly, the fact that alcohol and binge-drinking is considered a legitimately mandatory part of college/youth-culture is far more alarming to me than the thought of drunken youths doing questionable things while under the influence.

That's why I believe they should both be allowed to stay. If you have loaded guns lying around, and keep imprisoning anyone who shoots another person, you're never going to fix the actual problem: The guns.

Eliminate the alcohol from the equation and you've got a bunch of youths who all have exactly the same amount of personal responsibility for their actions. There is no reason why any institution should not consider alcohol as much of a drug as cocaine or cannabis. Had alcohol been invented today, it would likely be just as illegal, seeing how it's generally far more dangerous than most actually illegal drugs. Hell, you're probably going to have a better chance at reasoning with someone who's high than someone who's drunk.

It doesn't look like John agreed to be interviewed (see here, page 73). He was given a chance to do so, but he didn't show up. I suspect his lawyer probably told him not to, given a possible criminal investigation. But here is his statement (page 115):

And part of the Adjudicator's decision (same link as above, starts on page 100):

It may well be that drinking or having sex when you have a penis is turning into something that is just unwise to do- ... -or giving sperm to lesbians.

To be fair that right there is a rare case, but it's been known to happen not exclusively with lesbians, but various women impregnated by sperm donors - As well as sperm donors demanding parental rights years down the line. If find the generalizing terminology you use to be exaggerating something that is, to the general public, a minor issue, and making it sound like the blame lies with a large group when it's really just a few rotten apples. I don't thinking donating sperm to lesbians is generally as bad as drinking. The comparison isn't really there in my opinion.

As for your question about child support and who has the right to demand it.. I think you're deviating from the point of your own debate by going down that route. Perhaps you should consider starting another thread for that topic rather than discussing it under a, by now, misleading title.

I do feel like, if we go with neither, and one is sober but the other is intoxicated, we shouldn't go with "just expel the sober one." I shudder to imagine how things will end up if being intoxicated becomes a defense.

One other thing that I'd point out is that legal drinking age in the US is 21. Assuming that students are coming directly from a normal course of K-12 education, most of the undergrad students are below US drinking age. (18 as a freshman, 19 as a sophomore, 20 as a junior, and 21 as a senior.)

One other thing that I'd point out is that legal drinking age in the US is 21. Assuming that students are coming directly from a normal course of K-12 education, most of the undergrad students are below US drinking age. (18 as a freshman, 19 as a sophomore, 20 as a junior, and 21 as a senior.)

I'm perfectly fine with having different punishments in a case like this if one party is under the legal drinking age and the other isn't. I'm also in support of a college saying that anyone drinking while underage can get expelled for it if caught (although such a policy should be clearly noted ahead of time and shouldn't be retroactive). Although it might be worth noting that just what part of "underage drinking" is illegal varies from state to state; more than half allow drinking by a minor under parental supervision on private property, several allow it for religious or medical purposes, some allow for educational purposes (culinary school), and a few allow it on alcohol-selling premises with parental presence and consent.

One other thing that I'd point out is that legal drinking age in the US is 21. Assuming that students are coming directly from a normal course of K-12 education, most of the undergrad students are below US drinking age. (18 as a freshman, 19 as a sophomore, 20 as a junior, and 21 as a senior.)

Thank you, I don't know the exact numbers by heart, not being an American.

But that basically support what I said earlier: Ban the alcohol. That's the real problem here. I'm not saying that sexual assault of someone under the influence of any stimulant/depressant isn't an issue elsewhere, but this particular question is based around a typical college scenario. I genuinely find it alarming that while she was apparently under the age of 18, no one is batting an eye at the fact that she was this drunk. How is breaking the law not considered an offense? Why does the law not apply to college?

Again, I'm not American, but in the country where I live you would have been thrown if you had been caught drinking like at an educational institution. Especially if you were also under the legal age-limit.

(I hope I worded all of that correctly. Feeling a little dizzy today.)